...then why did they go to all the trouble of planting light poles, paying off their "accomplice" Lloyd England, and constructing an entirely fabricated damage path...ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CITGO.

This is from TJ (IVXX) and I.

Don't make this about personal attacks. Address the question.

Why would the perpetrators go to the trouble of faking all that damage the night before, including hiring their star "accomplice" Lloyd England, only to jeopardize it all by flying the plane in on the North Side of the station, where eyewitnesses could all see it and tell two film-makers five years after the fact?

Huh?

We've answered this before.

Two possibilities:

1. A simple mistake of which there were clearly many in an operation this complex. Since we know the plane "banked" over the Navy Annex according to many witnesses it's likely it had veered a bit off course and was correcting itself.

2. It was done deliberately so if anyone noticed the plane fly over it would more easily pass for a "2nd plane" and they could say that AA77 was on the physical damage path.



Personally I think number one is more likely.

Obviously, as I said, there were many mistakes in this operation and it's clear that it took the movement quite a while to focus in on this one.

But it is not our responsibility to answer "why" every little detail happened the way it did.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to the plane on the north side.

This is what ALL of the eyewitnesses report.

There is not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence who directly puts the plane on the south of the citgo.

Ok, is everyone paying attention?

There could be a number of reasons why this would be the case. Craig and I may have differing answers.

-Perhaps 9/11 was designed to be uncovered.

-Perhaps the plane accidentally missed it's target and had to correct itself at the last second.

-Perhaps the plane was supposed to stay on the official flight path, until it crossed over to the north side. At that point, it would be "a different plane on a different flight path" ooooorrrr...."a second plane flying along the same flight path, that veered away after the explosion".

-Perhaps they were afraid the overhead sign would be too much of an obstacle and did not want to get the plane that low in case it REALLY did hit some light poles.

-Perhaps they wanted the plane out in the middle of the area for everyone to see approaching in.


Now, your turn Dylan. Since you believe in the remoted guided 757. Please explain the following.

-Why didn't the plane just dive into the Pentagon?

-Why didn't the plane make the left instead of the spiral?

-Do you believe a 757 can survive 5 light poles impacts to the wings without seriously wrecking the wings and impeding an accuarate and successfull impact? Do you have any evidence for this?

-Why, if the plane was remote guided, would you fly it over such complicated topography with all kinds of obstacles to then try to thread it like a needle PAST A VDOT POLE AND OVERHEAD SIGN and through 5 250 lb light poles?

Let's start here and then we'll continue.

Craig, it was a mistake?? That's it?? The perps planned out this huge operation yet simply forgot their plane was coming in from the north so they faked the damage to a south flight path. That's what you want us to believe here??

You think it more than likely one which is a HUGE mistake in the planning. When the "perps" were planning it why even think about a south flight path if their plane is coming from the north??

Those two possibilities aren't even weak at best.

So you're saying your answer is all speculation and nothing rock solid??

Please point to a single quote where I say I believe it was a remote-controlled 757. Just because I talk to Russell Pickering and honor his research doesn't mean we share the same brain.

See Aldo's answer as well.

It is not our responsibility to answer "why" every little detail happened the way it did.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to the plane on the north side.

This is what ALL of the eyewitnesses report.

There is not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence who directly puts the plane on the south of the citgo.

You can't dismiss the evidence just because you aren't satisfied with speculation as to WHY things were pulled off the way they were.

It's not speculation. It's a perfectly logical question that needs to be satisfactorily answered.

You are asking us to speculate!

How are we supposed to know why every little thing happened the way that it did?

The evidence is what it is.

Why are you denying the evidence and demanding that CIT has answers to questions that only the perps know?

The only way the answer to that question wouldn't be speculation is if we were the perps.

Is that what you believe?

Why controlled demo?

Why hit the pentagon at all?

Why demolish building 7?

NOBODY knows the answer to these questions and nobody ever will know.

We can only speculate.

But not knowing the answer to these questions does not negate the evidence.

Rock solid?

lol.

Those goal posts moved far enough, eh TJ?

Of course we don't know why. But we know it did come on the north side of the Citgo.

Right?

The plane was on the north side of the Citgo. Right?

Yes or no?

Are you calling the witnesses liars or mistaken?

You do realize that the plane did ride along side the official flight path right?

Staging all that damage and planting Lloyd only to fly the plane on the complete opposite side of the Citgo would be like blowing up WTC7 before either tower fell.

Oh, ok so that thread pinned up there about hani's flying ability is just for show?

So then, do you believe Hani hanjour piloted the pentagon plane, yes or no?

Or like having bombs go off in building 7 before either tower fell?

Uh-huh.

In fact it's almost EXACTLY like that.

In other words a smoking gun.

You cannot provide a quote, Aldo. Put up or shut up.

You don't know what I believe.

What you guys aren't getting is that the north of the citgo flight path is only different from the physical damage path by a relatively minuscule amount.

That's why nobody really noticed.

It took a lot of time and a lot of research and a lot of digging to figure out the significance.

But the evidence is what it is.

Ok, now you're reaching, Craig. There's almost a 45 degree difference.

Really?

Well it seemed to work for 5 years did it not? And you all seem to still believe the plane flew on the south side. So I guess it was pretty effective was it not?

Dylan, we are talking about trillions of dollars here and the fate of the US.

Nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

We're talking about months before 9/11. Preparing for it using "renovation" ops.

That would require 2 trailers, a generator, explosives, and 5 light poles.

Everything except the light poles would be and could be accomplished by a small "renovation" team. In fact, two "renovation" workers helped fabricate the south side flight path which supports our assertion.

What I mean is that there was only about 1 second where it was off course and it still met the Pentagon at the fireball.

That is relatively minuscule.

that's why I am asking.

Do you believe Hani Hanjour piloted the pentagon plane? Yes or no?

Put up or shut up.

Notice how the plane hand isnt above the Pentagon hand.

This guy is a credible witness right?

I'm not calling your witnesses liars. However you and Craig say 3 are mistaken when they say they saw the plane hit.

You wanna move those goal posts again now??

It's not???? Your the ones who screanm North Side Story™ and flyover™ but it isn't your responsibility to provide evidence? No wonder you never took this "evidence" to court because you don't know how it works.

C'mon man...perhaps is neither evidence nor an explanation.

But for people who were there, the difference is irrelevant.

No one was looking and staring and documeting flight path damage.

NO ONE.

Even lagasse , WHO WAS THERE, is simply boiling the official ASCE report to scientists who were not there and did not ask him or any of the other officers who saw it approach.

Exactly. So since your so concerned with put up or shut up.

Why did the perps who planned this operation not make the damage fit a north flight path??

Put up or shut up.

Why did the perps have bombs go off in building 7 before causing it to completely collapse?

If you don't have proof of the answer to this question does it disprove controlled demo or discredit Barry?


This is what you are doing to us.

You are suggesting that all of the north side witnesses are discredited if CIT doesn't have proof for the answer to the question of WHY it flew where they all saw it fly.

Exactly and the evidence shows that a plane hit the lightpoles, generator and Pentagon from a SOUTH flight path. Why do you ignore the evidence?

No.

The answer to this question has no bearing on the evidence that Dylan has refused to comment on.

It's an unfair question.

We can speculate an answer for you but you can not fairly expect us to KNOW the answer or refuse to accept our speculation.

You keep doing this. It's not even coy anymore.

Do...you...understand...that...the...plane...cannot...hit...the...building...and...cause...the...damage...we...see......the... damage ...that... is ...outlined... by... the ...ASCE report??????????????????

Do

You

get

it?


No let's try it another way, explain to me how the plane hit the building, generator, trailer AND THE LIGHT POLES COMING FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO.

PS...Brooks already said our movie was an eyeopener, and that it is possible he was fooled.

OK then answer this one since I knew you couldn't answer the other one.

3 of your own witnesses said the plane hit. Explain that.

PS - possible doesn't mean definite.

How was it piloted then?

I remember very well when Craig misrepresented Lagasse when he said something like: 'Maybe Lagasse was really talking about the plane pulling up... blablabla...'

...and then, in the same thread, I deliberatly tried to do the same stunt. I misrepresented Lagasse too using the CIT method. Craig freaked out for pages and pages only to come back to reality when I showed him his initial lie, how CIT tried themselves to cheat and twist every little bit of information to make us think flyover.

You guys have a serious credibility problem.

i understand that you guys are ignoring my questions because Dylan made it clear this is not going to become a personal insult fest but my questions aren't going away.

Yes, this whole thread is a setup.

...then why did they ....

We don't know WHAT they actually did, do we? Can we even define they?

I mean, we can't even have an honest open accounting of how many planes were actually in the air at 9:30am over DC.

Which 'plane' people are witnessing about?
The E4b, c130, or an other?